I noticed when reading the minutes of an ACU board meeting that an official preparing an Enduro in the Langdale forest received a "Section 59" Notice. Now they were there operating under an ACU licence which I presume means they were also there with the Co-Operation of the land owners. the Incident is discribed thus.

Langdale Forest Incident

Mr Willoughby had reported on a recent incident that had taken place regarding a Work Party of six riders on bikes in the Langdale Forest preparing a course for an Enduro event. The Work Party was operating under an ACU permit. During the day the riders were approached by three Police Officers and a National Parks Ranger. The police officers checked the bikes for Tax, MOT tests and Insurance. One bike in question was found to have no tax or insurance. After being interviewed by the Police, the rider in question was interviewed a few days later at a Police station and was issued with a Section 59 document. This incident has raised some concerns as to the legality of riders in the forest and the General Secretary was asked to obtain precise details of the incident in order that the Board can fully understand the matter and take any appropriate action.

The matter is ongoing.

Now this means that they were unable to prosecute the official and issued a Section 59. Now listed below are the reasons a section 59 can be issued and you do not have to attend a Police Station to have one posted against your vehicle.

Where an officer has reasonable grounds for believing that a motor vehicle is being used in a manner which contravenes Road Traffic Act Section 3 (Careless Driving) OR Section 34 (Driving elsewhere than on a road) AND also the manner of use of the vehicle is causing or has been causing or is likely to cause, alarm distress or annoyance to members of the public.

It's doubtful the Rider Contravened Section 3 of the RTA or all riders would have been issued a S56. Section 34 was not contravened either as again the other riders were not issued a S56. and again as the other riders were not issued a S56 He was not causing Distress etc. This is yet another Misuse of a badly thought out and worded piece of Labour sponsored law. It seems that in this case the Officers themselves had no means to prosecute the official and have tried to mistakenly apply this act. Given the Police concerned did not apply the law correctly, (they seem to know Nothing about it or merely use it maliciously), it would be prudent to ask why it was used and get it struck off because of the mistakes made by the Officers.

My understanding of this situation is that the guy concerned was issued a section 59 as his was the only bike not road legal, FC land is public property and unless a forestry closure notice has been issued riding a bike with no Tax, MOT tests and Insurance is the same as riding one in a town carpark not necessary a highway but an area where the general public has access to "Section 34 (Driving elsewhere than on a road)". This is a massive can of worms that could affect a number of different FC users.

Pity it ever got as far as it did/has. As we don't have full details of what happened it's not fair to comment exept to say that it sounds like a lack of communication twixt organisers and forestry official.... it must of been fully explained at the time and it does seem to be a vindictive waste of public money, but then give somebody (usually a nobody) a uniform /clipbard and it's a part of UK life unfortunately.

when you start to do work for any events; a) get a permit, sign people on the officials form when you start the work (even if its weeks before the event, c) check everything is kosher with you setting out ie riding bikes would count as a permitted development under the 14/28 day rule, the ACU insurance doesn't cover you to use vehicles (eg a tractor, digger, etc - probably does cover you riding a bike on normal off road land)

Bikespace : "Rabie doesn't do spelling, but if he did, it would rpobalbe be the best in the world"